Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYzHhc28h9KXyHr1=Q0hK3BKvACFZmmZ3CRX4O5TKnAHw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hash partitioning will partition the data based on the hash value of the
> partition key. Does that require collation? Should we throw an error/warning if
> collation is specified in PARTITION BY clause?

Collation is only relevant for ordering, not equality.  Since hash
opclasses provide only equality, not ordering, it's not relevant here.
I'm not sure whether we should error out if it's specified or just
silently ignore it.  Maybe an ERROR is a good idea?  But not sure.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Remi Colinet
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] [PATCH v2] Progress command to monitor progression of long runningSQL queries
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()